Find a Lawyer

BAHADUR SHER versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Section Em 350 Em Immigration Ordinance (1979 1979 of, XVIII), Sections 18 (b) and 22 (b) The accused was charged when his co-accused was absconding and the prosecution. After investigating eight witnesses, the prosecution's easement was stopped, while the retired and another judge reviewed the use, which accused the accused alone and re-examined nine witnesses, and prosecuted the trial case judge. Closed, however, when he began the trial of the co-accused, he did not accuse the accused further. After either investigating the suspects and recording the defense evidence, if any, under the S342, CR PC, the trial judge should have pronounced the verdict against them, or both of them would have been charged on both counts. And the trial judge did not make the decision. The adoption of one of the two alternatives and the illegality of its significance were the result of which the accused suffered prejudice in their defense. Accordingly, the convictions of the accused were set aside and the case remanded to the trial court so that the accused could be jointly charged and ascertained whether the case was de novo and after that the case was decided. Or examine the possibility of recording a separate sentence against them. criminal advocate from Sanghi lawyer